Lovell v. Howard

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID ANTHONY LOVELL, Case No. 25-cv-05623-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 24 10 HOWARD, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pro se Plaintiff David Anthony Lovell failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 14 Cause, Dkt. No. 24. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case without prejudice for failure to 15 prosecute. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff is an inmate at Alameda County Santa Rita Jail. On July 2, 2025, he filed this 18 action, alleging that Defendant Deputy Howard pulled him into an isolation cell and knowingly 19 gave Plaintiff food to which he was allergic, forcing Plaintiff to starve. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff 20 alleges that while he remained in the “torture cell,” officers played a high-pitched ringing sound 21 on the intercom, which caused him to experience symptoms of tinnitus. Id. Plaintiff seeks 22 damages and an injunction imposing a one-hour maximum limit for any prisoner sent to isolation 23 cells in California. Id. 24 Plaintiff successfully served Defendant, Dkt. No. 9, and Defendant answered Plaintiff’s 25 complaint, Docket No. 11. But when the case management conference took place on December 4, 26 2025, Plaintiff did not appear. See Dkt. No. 15. On December 8, 2025, Judge Cisneros ordered 27 Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, setting a deadline of January 8, 2026 1 this Court, on February 9, 2026, the Court once again ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case 2 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute given his failure to respond to Judge Cisneros’ 3 December 8, 2025 order, and the Court set a February 23, 2026 deadline for Plaintiff to respond. 4 Dkt. No. 24. Plaintiff did not respond by the February 23, 2026 deadline (and has not responded 5 to date). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The district court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a 8 court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of 9 prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but 10 by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly 11 and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 12 “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in 13 extreme circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations 14 omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates as 15 an adjudication on the merits” unless the order says otherwise). 16 Courts “must weigh five factors” in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 17 prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 18 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 19 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” See 20 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61. A court need not make “explicit findings in order to show that it has 21 considered these factors,” although such findings are preferred. Id. at 1261. Here, the Court finds 22 that these factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 23 First, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 24 dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. Cal. 25 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). That is true here. Plaintiff failed to respond to two 26 orders to show cause. Dkt. Nos. 16, 24. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in the four 27 months since the last order to show cause was issued. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s lack of 1 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal. 2 Second, it is “incumbent” upon courts “to manage [their] docket[s] without being subject 3 to routine noncompliance” of litigants. See id. (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261). Moreover, “[t]he 4 trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with 5 docket management and the public interest.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated “routine 6 noncompliance”: he failed to timely respond to two Orders to Show Cause as detailed above. See 7 Dkt. Nos. 16, 24. Plaintiff’s noncompliance “has consumed some of the court’s time that could 8 have been devoted to other cases on the docket.” See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. This factor 9 also weighs in favor of dismissal. 10 Third, in order to prove prejudice, “a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions 11 impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision 12 of the case.” Id. (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). 13 “Whether prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in part judged with reference to 14 the strength of the plaintiff’s excuse for the default.” Id. (citation omitted). In Malone, which 15 involved a Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, the district court found 16 the plaintiff’s excuse for her failure to comply with a pretrial order to be “groundless,” justifying 17 dismissal. Id. And in Yourish, which also involved plaintiffs who failed to obey a court order, the 18 court concluded that the defendants had suffered “sufficient prejudice” where the plaintiffs had 19 only a “paltry excuse” for why they failed to timely amend their complaint. 191 F.3d at 991–92. 20 Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely not one but two show cause orders, and has offered no reason 21 for his noncompliance. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal. 22 Fourth, the Court has attempted to avail itself of less drastic alternatives that have proven 23 ineffective in advancing the case. The Court entered two orders to show cause, expressly warning 24 Plaintiff that his case was at risk of dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. Nos. 16, 24. He 25 did not respond. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 26 (stating that Ninth Circuit authority “suggest[s] that a district court’s warning to a party that his [or 27 her] failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of ] The last factor—the public policy favoring disposition on the merits—weighs against 2 || dismissal here, as it always will even when a party entirely fails to prosecute. See Pagtalunan, 3 || 291 F.3d at 643. 4 || I. CONCLUSION 5 Because four of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissal, the Court finds that dismissal 6 || of Plaintiffs case for failure to prosecute is appropriate. The Court thus DISMISSES this case 7 || under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and 8 close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: 6/15/2026 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28